APPENDIX TO 
But the Court must be on its 
guard against being led into any 
undue indulgence in the exercise 
of its power in this respect: a 
power sorarely called into action, 
that it was hardly known to exist 
until so declared by a recent de- 
cision of a higher tribunal. It 
was to be considered, whether 
the opposing parties in this case 
had done nothing more than what 
they could not possibly avoid ; 
but he apprehended that they had. 
Affidavits as to the particular cir- 
cumstances of the case might have 
been filed, with proxies of consent 
from the next of kin, which would 
have been sufficient for the pro- 
bate’s passing in common form: 
but the parties had thought fit, 
for their own satisfaction, to put 
the executor to the proof of the 
will in a more solemn form; they 
had certainly the right of doing 
so, but then it was to beexercised, 
on their part, at theirown expense. 
There was yet another consider- 
ation, that though the parties 
were in a humble sphere of life, 
yet they had, under the will, a 
fund, out of which their expenses 
might very well be paid: there 
was a legacy of 1000/. 3 per cent 
coasols, bequeathed amongst four 
of them; so that to accede to the 
present application, would be, in 
effect, to condemn the residuary 
legatee in costs. The will was, 
therefore, pronounced for, and 
' the application for costs rejected, 
leaving it to each party to pay 
their own costs. 
PREROGATIVE COURT, DOCTORS’ 
COMMONS, 
Chalmersv. Catherwoodand Others. 
This was a question upon the 
CHRONICLE. 
admissibility of an allegation 
pleading two testamentary papers 
as codicils to the will of William 
Looker, formerly of Great Car- 
ter-lane, Doctors’ Commons, but 
late of Islington, and belonging 
to the Excise-office, deceased. 
The deceased had duly exe- 
‘cuted his will, dated 18th of July, 
1807, and by it disposed of his 
property amongst his family, to 
the exclusion only of his eldest 
son, Henry William Looker. 
The first codicil, dated 20th of 
April, 1810, was merely a recog- 
nition of his having in his will 
intentionally omitted the name of 
his eldest son, and, in compli- 
ance with the vulgar notion, gave 
him one shilling lest he should 
dispute the will. To this codicil 
there was.a clause of attestation, 
but no witnesses. 
The second codicil purported 
to express an intention of making 
several alterations in the will, the 
principal one of which was, to 
leave the testator’s daughter 100/. 
per annum, and his house and 
furniture for life, stated his being 
described of two different places 
of residence in his different stocks 
at the Bank, which would render ~ 
it necessary to specify both when 
the alterations should be made, 
and concluded with various other 
memoranda as to the power of 
trustees, the mode of substitut- 
ing others for such as might die, 
the amount and particulars of 
this stock, &c. This codicil was 
without date, but signed by the 
deceased. 
TheSrdcodicil consisted ofsome 
memoranda in pencil, on the back 
of the Ist, to the same effect as 
those on the 2nd; and there were 
also some other papers or memo= 
261 
